On the history and the history-making of the early Yogācāra Buddhism in China

For decades, modern scholars depicted early Yogācāra Buddhism in China by categorizing it into three discrete scholastic groups, namely the Northern Dilun faction, the Southern Dilun faction, and the Shelun faction. Supposedly, each faction represents an idiosyncratic understanding of Yogācāra Buddh...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Auteur principal: Qi, Guanxiong (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Article
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
En cours de chargement...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publié: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group 2022
Dans: Studies in Chinese Religions
Année: 2022, Volume: 8, Numéro: 2, Pages: 238-258
Sujets non-standardisés:B Six Dynasties Buddhism
B Historiography
B Yogācāra Buddhism
B Chinese Buddhist history
B Shelun
B Dilun
Accès en ligne: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Résumé:For decades, modern scholars depicted early Yogācāra Buddhism in China by categorizing it into three discrete scholastic groups, namely the Northern Dilun faction, the Southern Dilun faction, and the Shelun faction. Supposedly, each faction represents an idiosyncratic understanding of Yogācāra Buddhism, and there were many doctrinal conflicts between these factions for contending with orthodoxy. In this article, I will re-examine this schist narrative and highlight some of its unstable presuppositions. I argue these designations of early Yogācāra factions are prejudiced outsiders’ projections that do not reflect any accurate historical circumstance. The modern constructed history of the Dilun-Shelun schism only exists under the modern history-making enterprise as a compromised sectarian narrative of the Chinese Buddhist past. In the end, I suggest we shall abandon the ‘factional discourse’ and focus on discursive studies of Buddhist historiographies.
ISSN:2372-9996
Contient:Enthalten in: Studies in Chinese Religions
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1080/23729988.2022.2091375